DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 09, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending in the application. Claim 4 was canceled. Claims 16-20 are newly added and support can be found in the original Specification. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 10, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, 5-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norfolk et al. (US 2014/0127440 A1; hereafter as “Norfolk”).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Norfolk teaches a mobile electronic device that comprises a polymer composition [Claim 1], corresponding to the electrical or electronic article comprising a polymer composition (PC) of Claim 1. Norfolk further teaches:
Polyamide [Example 1; Claim 1; ¶ 0062-0064], corresponding to the polyamide of Claim 1; and
Glass fiber [Claim 10], corresponding to the glass fiber of Claim 1;
a heat of fusion of at least 20.0 J/g [¶ 0075], corresponding to a heat of fusion of at least 30 J/g of Claim 1;
Wherein the polyamide has recurring units derived from the polycondensation of a mixture of monomers [Claim 1], corresponding to the polyamide (PA) is derived from the polycondensation of monomers in a reaction mixture of Claim 1; said monomers comprising:
A diamine component [Example 1; Claim 5], corresponding to a diamine component (A) of Claim 1; and
A dicarboxylic component [Example 1; Claim 1], corresponding to the dicarboxylic component (B) of Claim 1;
Wherein said diamine component comprises:
19.85 kg of 1,10-diaminodecane [Example 1; Claims 5, 7], which is equivalent to 29 mol % of 1,10-diaminodecane (MW = 172.2 g/mol; 19.85 kg/172.2 g/mol = 115 mol; 115 mol/395 total mol = 29 mol %), corresponding to 20 mol % to 95 mol % of a C4 to C12 aliphatic diamine of Claim 1, and thereby reading on the 1,10-diaminodecane of Claim 2; and
39.87 kg 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane [Example 1; Claim 4], which is equivalent to 71 mol % of 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane (MW=142.25 g/mol; 39.87 kg/142.25 g/mol = 280 mol; 280 mol/395 total mol = 71 mol %), corresponding to 5 mol % to 80 mol % of bis(aminoalkyl)cyclohexane of Claim 1, and thereby reading on the 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane of Claim 3; and
Wherein said dicarboxylic acid component comprises:
25-85 mol % terephthalic acid [¶ 0043], corresponding to 30 mol % to 99 mol % of terephthalic acid of Claim 1; and
20 – 60 mol % [¶ 0054] of cyclohexane-1,4-dicarboxylic acid [¶ 0057], corresponding to 1 mol % to 70 mol % of 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, however, polyamides with a heat of fusion of at least 30 J/g are not exemplified by Norfolk.
Nevertheless, Norfolk teaches polyamide, glass fiber, diamine component, and dicarboxylic acid component with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” a polyamide with a heat of fusion of at least 30 J/g as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 5-9, 12, 15, and 17-19, Norfolk further teaches:
1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane [Example 1; Claim 4], corresponding to the 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane of Claim 5;
49.2 wt. % of polyamide [Table 3], corresponding to wherein the polyamide (PA) concentration in the polymer composition (PC) is from 20 wt. % to 85 wt. % of Claim 6;
50 wt. % of glass fibers [¶ 0151], corresponding to wherein the glass fiber concentration is 10 wt. % to 70 wt. % of Claim 7;
A halogen-free flame retardant agent [¶ 0094], corresponding to the halogen free flame retardant of Claim 8;
Titanium dioxide [Claim 12; ¶ 0088], which the instant Specification discloses as an acid scavenger [Specification, Page 17, ¶ 2], corresponding to the acid scavenger of Claim 9;
A circuit board [Claim 15], thereby reading on the integrated circuit of Claim 12;
A method for the manufacture of the mobile electronic device [Claim 15], corresponding to a method to form the electrical or electronic article of Claim 15;
Extruding the finished polymer [¶ 0107], corresponding to extruding the polymer composition of Claim 15;
A glass transition temperature of 120˚C - 180 ˚C [¶ 0137], thereby reading on a Tg of at least 145˚C of Claim 17, thereby reading on a Tg of at least 150˚C of Claim 18;
Blending and melting of the components in the polymer composition [¶ 0096], corresponding to melt-blending the polyamide and the other components of Claim 19.
Regarding Claims 10-11 and 20, however, Norfolk is silent to further comprising a Comparative Tracking Index ("CTI") of at least 750 V after heat aging for 2,800 hours as measured according to ASTM D3638 of Claim 10, wherein the electrical or electronic article is exposed to air at a temperature of 120˚C, preferably at 150˚C of Claim 11, and wherein the electrical or electronic article is exposed to air at a temperature of 150˚C of Claim 20.
However, the properties of the electrical or electronic article, such as Comparative Tracking Index and exposure to hot air, are functions of the article composition and the method by which it is made. Since Norfolk teaches the same electrical or electronic article formed by the same method as required by the instant claim, as set forth in the rejection above, the article of Norfolk would be expected to result in the same Comparative Tracking Index and air exposure as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed electrical or electronic article properties, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (polyamide and glass fibers) for the same utility (making a polymer composition) and for the same purpose (of producing an electrical or electronic article).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norfolk et al. (US 2014/0127440 A1; hereafter as “Norfolk”) as evidenced by Auto Learning Center (How to Listen to AM Radio in an EV (NPL); hereafter as “Auto Learning Center”) and Lemo (High Voltage Single Contact Connectors: Y, S, E and 05 Series (NPL); hereafter as “Lemo”).
Norfolk teaches the mobile electronic article, polyamide and glass fibers of Claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Although Norfolk does not particularly teach an electric vehicle or high voltage connectors, Norfolk further teaches said mobile electronic article may include a radio [¶ 0025], which Auto Learning Center teaches may be a part of an electric vehicle [Page 2], corresponding to wherein the article is an all electric vehicle part or a hybrid electric vehicle part of Claim 13. Furthermore, Lemo teaches radios may have high voltage connectors [Page 15], thereby reading on the high voltage connectors of Claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) Norfolk does not disclose a heat of fusion of at least 30 J/g, which qualifies the polyamide as a semi-crystalline polyamide. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above wherein Norfolk teaches the polymer composition may comprise semi-crystalline polyamides having a heat of fusion of at least 20.0 J/g [¶ 0075]. which corresponds to the claimed polyamide with a heat fusion of at least 30 J/g. Furthermore, Claim 1 does not require the polyamide to be semi-crystalline making it unclaimed subject matter. The prior art is not required to anticipate or render obvious unclaimed subject matter. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (2) claim 1 requires a 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid, which is a cyclic dicarboxylic acid, whereas Norfolk discloses that excellent results were obtained when an acyclic aliphatic dicarboxylic acid was present. However, attention is drawn to the disclosure above wherein Norfolk teaches the claimed cyclohexane-1,4-dicarboxylic acid [¶ 0050]. While Norfolk teaches other embodiments, Norfolk is not required to teach the claimed embodiment as the preferred embodiment in order to anticipate or render obvious the claimed subject matter. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (3) that the instant application includes unexpected results in view of Norfolk. However, the data disclosed in the instant Specification has been considered and is not persuasive. Example E1 comprises 52.3 wt. % PA3 (Tg = 165˚C; Tm=330 ˚C); Counter Example CE1 comprises 42.8 wt. % PA1 (Tg = 125˚C; Tm=310 ˚C); and Counter Example CE2 comprises 42.8 wt. % PA2 (Tg = 125˚C; Tm=310 ˚C). All of the provided examples, E1, CE1, and CE2, comprise components that are within the claimed ranges of :
polyamide concentration is from 20 wt. to 85 wt. % of Claim 6;
glass fiber concentration is from 10 wt. to 70 wt. % of Claim 7;
wherein the polyamide has a Tg of at least 145˚C and/or a Tm of at least 295˚C of Claim 17; and
wherein the polyamide has a Tg of at least 150˚C and/or a Tm of at least 300˚C of Claim 18.
Despite the singular example and two counter examples falling within the claimed ranges, only E1 demonstrates an unexpected result. It is unclear whether the claimed ranges confer the unexpected results. Furthermore, only a singular exemplary example was provided. Thus, the claimed ranges are not commensurate in scope with the claimed ranges. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. It is recommended that experimental data be provided with several data points within (e.g.: Tg of at least 150˚C and/or a Tm of at least 300˚C) and several data points outside the claimed ranges (e.g.: Tg less than 150˚C and a Tm less than 300˚C).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764